JUDGMENT Krishnan Unni, J.: Appellant is the accused in S.C. No.52 of 1992 before Sessions Court, North Paravur. He was convicted under Sec.302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of his sister's child Renuka aged 7 years and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence are challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case as spoken to by P.W.2 is as follows: P.W.2 Radha and her husband P.W.11 are residing in House No.XI/4505, Valiya Veedu, Vaghakkala Kara in Vazhakkala village. They had two children, namely Renuka aged 7 years who was studying in the Second Standard and another child to which P.W.2 gave birth just prior to the incident. Accused, brother of P.W.2 was residing alone in their family house at Perumbavoor. The accused, P.W.2, D.W.1 and Shylaja, another younger sister are the children of one Krishnan Achari who was a Tahsildar. P.W.2 is a clerk in the Agricultural Department since 1982. Her husband is employed in Cochin Shipyard. Krishnan Achari died while in service and P.W.2 got employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. D.W.1 Kamala is employed as Junior Telecom Officer in the Tele-Communication Department. She was also married in 1985. The other sister Shylaja is yet to be married. On 17.8.1991 the accused went to the house of P.W.2 at 9 a.m. P.W.2 was taking bath at that time. Her housing as a two-storeyed building. There are two rooms in the upstairs. When the accused came P.W.2 asked her servant Aysha (P.W.3) to attend to the visitor and P.W.3 told her that it was none other than her brother. When she came after bath the accused was sitting in the drawing room. They talked about various family matters. Accused expressed resentment that he continues to be unemployed because P.W.2 got the job in Government service. He asked for his share in the family house and P.W.2 told him that the matter can be considered only after Shylaja is married. He was talking to her angrily. Her husband had left for office at 8 a.m. Accused took Renuka and went out. He came back with the child after purchasing some lozenges for the child. She gave one to her mother and another to the servant. P.W.2 then went to the bed-room with her younger child and the accused and Renuka went upstairs. It was about 12 noon then. He came back with the child after purchasing some lozenges for the child. She gave one to her mother and another to the servant. P.W.2 then went to the bed-room with her younger child and the accused and Renuka went upstairs. It was about 12 noon then. After some time the accused came down and took a thorthu from the room downstairs just opposite to the kitchen. P.W.2 thought that he was taking it for playing with the child. At about 1 O’clock accused and Renuka came down took lunch and after 15 minutes went upstairs again. P.W.3 then asked the child whether she should not study for the examination. The child replied that she wants to go and sleep with her uncle and went with him. After lunch P.W.2 also went and slept in her room and P.W.3 was cleaning the vessels. At that time the accused came down and went upstairs with a ribbon used by Renuka which was red and light blue in colour. P.W.3 was employed there only for about three months to attend to her child. P.W.2 has asked her to find out a permanent servant and for that purpose P.W.3 went out at about 2.30 p.m. Before that P.W.3 remarked that the behaviour of the accused was suspicious and asked P.W.2 to be cautious. 3. About 15 minutes after P.W.3 left, P.W.2 found the accused coming down and going out. She thought he was going to buy cigarette and will come soon. But he did not return. As the child was lying alone in the upstairs. P.W.2 went there and saw the child lying in the cot in the northern bed-room. At first she thought that the child was asleep and called her. There was no response. Then she went near the child and touched her to wake her up. She noticed that a cloth was tied around her neck. She cried and removed the cloth and noticed that the ribbon taken by the accused was tied around her neck. She went to the balcony and cried for help and P.W.1, a neighbour who was going along the road came there and saw the child lying in the cot. He asked P.W. 2 as to what happened to the child and P.W.2 told him that it was done by the accused. P.W.2 removed the ribbon from her neck and the child was motionless. He asked P.W. 2 as to what happened to the child and P.W.2 told him that it was done by the accused. P.W.2 removed the ribbon from her neck and the child was motionless. She took the child and came out. At that time C.W.4 Nabeesa and P.W.4 Vilasini came there and took the child from P.W.2. P.W.1 brought a taxi and they went to Sevanam Clinic where the child was examined by P.W.8, Dr. Johnson who advised them to take the child to the Medical Centre, Palarivattom where Dr. Ramesan (P.W.6) examined the child at about 3.15 p.m. and told that the child was dead. Thereafter, police was intimated and P.W.1 went and gave F.I. statement. 4. The investigation was taken over by the C.I. of Police (P.W.23). He held inquest over the dead body on 18.8.1991 at Medical Centre and prepared Ex.P-7 inquest report. The dress worn by the child, M.Os.4 and 5 and the ornaments M.Os.7, 8 and 9 were recovered. A thorthu, one ribbon, a saree used as bed-sheet, a match box and a cigarette stump were also recovered and sent for chemical examination. The accused was arrested on 21.8.1991 at Perumbavoor. He was produced in court and as per the request of P.W.23 he was sent to psychiatrist and Ex.P-6 is the certificate obtained. P.W.23 came to know that the accused was not suffering from any mental illness. Thereafter he filed the charge-sheet. 5. P.Ws.1 to 23 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-16 marked and M.Os.1 to 15 were exhibited on the side of the prosecution. Defence examined D.Ws.1 and 2. The accused set up a plea of insanity under Sec.8, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge turned down the plea of the accused and found him guilty of having committed the murder of Renuka. 6. There is no eye-witness to the incident in the sense that nobody has noticed the accused strangulating the child, But P.Ws.1 to 3 speak about the incident. We have already dealt with the evidence of P.W.2 by stating the prosecution case. The motive according to P.W.2 is that the accused felt that he had to remain unemployed because P.W.2 secured the job after her father's death. In cross-examination she stated that father died in 1981 and accused had given consent in giving the job to her. We have already dealt with the evidence of P.W.2 by stating the prosecution case. The motive according to P.W.2 is that the accused felt that he had to remain unemployed because P.W.2 secured the job after her father's death. In cross-examination she stated that father died in 1981 and accused had given consent in giving the job to her. The fact that the mother's property at Perumbavoor was owned by the parties and the accused has a share in it is not disputed. P.W.2 swears that accused wanted his share in it and she objected to that being sold till the marriage of Shylaja is over. 7. P.W.12 who was residing with the accused at Perumbavoor has given evidence that the accused told him that his sisters would be coming there to discuss some family matters and P.W.12 was asked to remain outside for sometime. P.W.11, husband of P.W.2 also has given evidence that the accused harboured some hostility towards P.W.2 because she secured the job after father's death and objected to the sale of family property to Perumbavoor. This fact is of course denied by another sister-D.W.1. D.W.2 uncle of the accused denied that there was any enmity between the accused and P.W.2 regarding the family property at Perumbavoor. It is true that the evidence shows that all other legal heirs including the accused agreed that the job under the dying-in-harness scheme be given to P.W.2. But this could never have prevented the accused from feeling that he had to remain unemployed because P.W.2 got the job. D.Ws. 1 and 2 would say that Krishnan Achari had tried to put up a small business for the accused and as he was not attending to the same it had to be closed down. Similarly they have a case that the mother who was employed in the Rayons resigned the job so that her son may get a job there. The evidence is that though an appointment order was received the accused tore it off and refused to go for me job. Nonetheless the accused felt that P.W.2 was the cause of his misfortunes or fall in life. One cannot blame him because of his outlook in life. Similarly, P.W.12's evidence would show that the accused was expecting to have discussions about the sale of property. 8. Nonetheless the accused felt that P.W.2 was the cause of his misfortunes or fall in life. One cannot blame him because of his outlook in life. Similarly, P.W.12's evidence would show that the accused was expecting to have discussions about the sale of property. 8. P.W.2's evidence is supported by the evidence of P.W.3, the servant who was in the house. The evidence of P.W.2 is that only herself, her children and P.W.3 were present in the house. She gave birth to a child about 40 days prior to the incident and P.W.3 was employed under her for three months to attend to the work during delivery time. P.W.3 is living very near to the house of P.W.2. P.W.3 has given evidence that she was working in the house of P.W.2 for three months. She says that on the fateful day she went to the house of P.W.2 at 7 a.m. for work. At about 9 a.m. she went to help P.W.2 in taking bath. At that time Renuka stated that uncle had come. P.W.2 asked her to attend to the visitor. She found the accused standing in the veranda. She told him to sit and he sat in the drawing room. After some time she heard the accused and P.W.2 talking something about the job. She also saw the accused taking the child Renuka to the shop. She says that they returned after some time with some lozenges. The accused again went out and came back at 12 noon. He took a thorthu and went upstairs. Renuka also accompanied him. Between 1 and 1.30 p.m. meal was served to accused and Renuka. After that the accused and Renuka went upstairs again. Renuka told that she was going to sleep with her uncle. Sometime later she found the accused coming down and taking a piece of cloth and a ribbon which was blue and red in colour. After completing her work at about 2.30 p.m. she went out to get a permanent servant for P.W. 2. At that time she found the accused standing in the balcony. She did not hear Renuka's sound. At about 5 p.m. P.W.3 returned and heard cries there. She came to know that Renuka was taken to Medical Centre. She proceeded to the Medical Centre in the autorickshaw in which she came. At that time she found the accused standing in the balcony. She did not hear Renuka's sound. At about 5 p.m. P.W.3 returned and heard cries there. She came to know that Renuka was taken to Medical Centre. She proceeded to the Medical Centre in the autorickshaw in which she came. She gives evidence that when she went out at 2.30 p.m., there was no one else in the house except the accused. P.W.2's husband had gone for work. P.W.3 was cross-examined at length and nothing was brought out to discredit her evidence. 9. P.W.1 Gopalakrishnan, a neighbour gave the First Information statement. He is a goldsmith having a shop at Vazhakkala. On 17.8.1991 he was on his way to his house situated near the house of P.W.2 to take lunch. As he was nearing his house, he found P.W.2 standing in the balcony and shouting at the top of her voice. He went mere immediately and found the child Renuka lying motionless in the northern room in the upstairs. He also found a ribbon tied around her neck and thorthu lying on the floor. P.W.23 told him that the accused had tied the ribbon around the child's neck. P.W.1 immediately brought a taxi owned by P.W.5 and proceeded to Sevanam Clinic with the child accompanied by his sister Vilasini, P.W.2 Sabeena and Kochurani. P.W.8 doctor advised mem to go to Medical Centre and they went there. The child was examined by P.W.6 at about 3.15 p.m. and he told that the child was dead. According to P.W.1 he went to the house of P.W.2 at 2.45 p.m. 10. Some other witnesses were examined to prove the presence of the accused in the house. Though not very important, we will make mention of them because they corroborate the prosecution version. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is that the accused and the child went out and accused purchased some lozenges for the child. P.Ws.9 and 10 are persons conducting shops near this place. P.W.9 says that on 17.8.1991, on which day the former Chief Minister Achutha Menon died, at about 10 a.m. the accused went to his shop with a small girl aged about 7 years and purchased two cigarettes. The girl wanted some lozenges and that was also purchased by the accused. P.Ws.9 and 10 are persons conducting shops near this place. P.W.9 says that on 17.8.1991, on which day the former Chief Minister Achutha Menon died, at about 10 a.m. the accused went to his shop with a small girl aged about 7 years and purchased two cigarettes. The girl wanted some lozenges and that was also purchased by the accused. Similarly, P.W.10, another person who conducts a small bunk shop nearby, says that at about 11 o’ Clock the accused came to his shop and purchased some cigarettes. 11. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly establishes that the accused went to the house of P.W.2 at about 9 a.m. and that after lunch between 1.15 and 1.30 p.m. he went to the upstairs accompanied by deceased Renuka. Thus the child was seen in the company of the accused at about 1.15 or 1.30 p.m. on the fateful day. P.W.2 swears that the accused went out at about 2.30 p.m. and did not return thereafter. P.W.2 then went upstairs and noticed the child lying motionless with a cloth and ribbon tied on her neck. She cried and called P.W.1 for help. This is supported by the evidence P.W. 1 who says that he went upstairs and found the child lying motionless in the northern room with a ribbon tied around her neck. The doctor P.W.8 says that he examined the child at 3 p.m. and knew that the child was dead but advised them to go the Medical Centre. P.W.6, Dr. Ramesan swears that he examined the child at 3.15 p.m. and found it dead. According to him the child must have died 10 minutes earlier before his examination and within two hours prior to it. 12. Ex.P-10 is the post-mortem certificate issued by Dr. Madan Mohan District Police Surgeon, General Hospital, Ernakulam. He was not available for examination because by the time he was dead. The prosecution examined P.Ws.19 and 22, two doctors who had worked with him. Both of them stated that they are familiar with the signature and handwriting of Dr. Madan Mohan and that Ex.P-10 was written in his handwriting. P.W.22 proved the signature of Dr. Madan Mohan in the post-mortem certificate. Ex.P-10 speaks about the injury of the child. The prosecution examined P.Ws.19 and 22, two doctors who had worked with him. Both of them stated that they are familiar with the signature and handwriting of Dr. Madan Mohan and that Ex.P-10 was written in his handwriting. P.W.22 proved the signature of Dr. Madan Mohan in the post-mortem certificate. Ex.P-10 speaks about the injury of the child. A transverse ante mortem ligature mark was seen on the upper part of the neck as a continues, dry, depressed, pressure abrasion 26 × 1 1.5 cm. in size with a knot below left side of middle of lower jaw. The mark was placed above the level of Thyroid Cartilage in front. Another faint transverse ligature mark confluent with the first mark measuring 28 × 6 cm. was seen on the front sides and back of neck without any knot mark. Neck was dissected in a bloodless filed. The soft tissues underneath the ligature marks were infiltrated with blood. The Hyoid bone showed an abduction fracture on the body Cartilage of neck was intact. The opinion as to cause of death is that the child due to ligature strangulation. 13. The evidence of P.W.12 would show that on the day of incident the accused left early in the morning stating that he was going to P.W.2's house and that he may return in the evening with his sisters. P.W.12 left the house at 7.30 a.m. and returned at 10 a.m. The accused had left the house then. P.W.12 again went out at 4.30 p.m. and came back by 6.30. The accused had come back by that time and he told the witness that his sisters may come the next day with the police. Accused wanted some liquor and P.W.12 purchased some rum for him. The accused then asked whether kanji will be available in jail. From the evidence of this witness it is clear that the accused was not at Perumbavoor and he left the place informing P.W.12 that he was going to his sister's house and returned only in the evening. 14. There is therefore evidence to show that the accused had left his place of residence and reached the house of P.W.2 at 9 a.m. He took his lunch from the house of P.W.2. 14. There is therefore evidence to show that the accused had left his place of residence and reached the house of P.W.2 at 9 a.m. He took his lunch from the house of P.W.2. There is direct evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 to show that after lunch he went upstairs with the child and was alone with her till he left the house at 2.30 p.m. In the meantime they noticed the accused taking a thorthu and ribbon and going upstairs. These materials were used to strangulate the child. P.W.2 noticed the child motionless at about 2.45 p.m. Thereafter on hearing the cries of P.W.2 P.W.1 came there and found the child motionless. Thus there is very clear and unambiguous testimony to show that at the time the child passed away, the accused and the child were alone in the upstairs of the house of P.W.2 and no one else had come to the house. This is a strong circumstances to prove that the accused and the accused alone would have strangulated the child. Thus, though there is no direct witness who had witnessed the accused doing the act, the circumstances are such that the accused alone would have performed this dastardly act. 15. The accused has taken a plea of insanity in defence to the charge. It appears that this loomed large at the time of investigation and the C.I. of Police requested the court to send the accused for observation. The defence case is that in April, 1990 the accused was taken to Kusumagiri Mental Hospital and treated by P.W.13, Dr. George Joseph, Psychiatrist. P.W. 13 says that on 17.4.1990 he examined the accused as his relatives had brought him stating that something was wrong with him and he had no sense of responsibility and was not keeping himself personally clean. He examined the patient and he did not find that he was suffering from any mental disease or insanity. He did not give him any medicine on that day. He asked them to come again on 8.5.1990 just to see his mental condition. On that day also he examined the patient. But he did not notice any signs of insanity. On 19.5.1990 he again examined the accused and found that he was not suffering from any psychotic disorder. He says that the records are kept in the hospital which would show the result of his examination. On that day also he examined the patient. But he did not notice any signs of insanity. On 19.5.1990 he again examined the accused and found that he was not suffering from any psychotic disorder. He says that the records are kept in the hospital which would show the result of his examination. In cross-examination he stated that on 19.5.1990 he had prescribed some medicine, i.e., half a tablet to be taken once in a day. 16. P.W.14, Dr. Gopalakrishnan, who was working as Psychiatrist in the General Hospital, Ernakulam, had kept the accused under observation from 25.2.1992 to 3.3.1992 in the hospital, as per the directions of the Magistrate. He says that during that period the accused did not show any sign of mental illness. Ex.P-6 is the certificate issued by P.W.14 after observing the accused. 17. P.W.2 has given evidence that on 17.5.1990 her husband P.W.11 and husband of D.W.1 had taken the accused to Kusumagiri Mental Hospital. The evidence of P.W.11 shows that he had taken the accused to the said hospital but the accused was not suffering from any insanity. Then there is the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 on this aspect. D.W. 1, sister of the accused has passed B. Tech. examination and is working as Junior Telecom Officer. She says that the accused was staying alone in the house at Perumbavoor after Shylaja began to stay with her at Kalamassery and Cherthala. At that time the behaviour of the accused was not the same as that of at normal person of his age. He used to spend sleepless nights deeply engaged in thoughts and used to refuse to take bath. He had no capacity to take any decisions by himself. When the witness was studying in 10th Standard, her father had managed to put up a press and paper-mart in Perumbavoor for the sake of the accused but he never used to attend the business and finally that was closed down. Though the accused got a job in the Travancore Rayons, he did not accept it. She says that her husband and P.W.11 had taken the accused to Kusumagiri hospital and the doctor advised that the accused should not stay alone at Perumbavoor and prescribed some medicines. Thereafter the accused stayed with her at Cherthala for two or three months. When she left for Bangalore for a training. She says that her husband and P.W.11 had taken the accused to Kusumagiri hospital and the doctor advised that the accused should not stay alone at Perumbavoor and prescribed some medicines. Thereafter the accused stayed with her at Cherthala for two or three months. When she left for Bangalore for a training. Shyalaja was left in a hostel and the accused went back to Perumbavoor. She also stated that her mother was treated by a Psychiatrist but that was not due to abnormality but due to increase in the level of blood urea which affects the brain. In cross-examination this witness admitted that the accused used to understand matters when she discussed it with him. 18. D.W.12 is the uncle of the accused. He is employed in the K.S.R.T.C. at Kottayam. He was residing in Perumbavoor and he used to be consulted in the family affairs. He also says that he had taken the accused to Kusumagiri hospital in 1989. ‘According to him, the accused was not behaving like a normal person and he was not attending to his daily chores. He used to spend sleepless nights and used to smoke. He never used to read newspapers. He used to go through cartoons, talk within himself and laugh. D.W.2 says that the accused was not taken to any doctor except P.W.13. 19. Learned counsel for appellant would argue that the accused was not a normal person and that he was admittedly taken to Kusumagiri hospital for treatment two or three times and the doctors prescribed medicines. He has not even passed S.S.L.C. and remained unemployed. He was not engaged in any occupation and he was not attending to the business set up for him by his father and refused to join the Rayons when he got a job there. He used to spend sleepless nights brooding over something and was not taking care of personal cleanliness. Learned counsel would array the above circumstances in support of his plea of insanity defence. As against this, we have the direct testimony of P.W.1 3, the doctor who treated him and P.W.14, the Psychiatrist who observed him as per court's order and gave evidence that accused is not suffering from insanity. P.W.13 did not even say that the accused was suffering from any mental disorder at all. As against this, we have the direct testimony of P.W.1 3, the doctor who treated him and P.W.14, the Psychiatrist who observed him as per court's order and gave evidence that accused is not suffering from insanity. P.W.13 did not even say that the accused was suffering from any mental disorder at all. Even if we accept the entire defence evidence and arguments, it will only prove that the accused was not a normal person and his behaviour was not the same as one would expect from a person of his age and maturity. He had certain personality traits like not attending to his cleanliness rod he used to brood over things without occupying himself. 20. In order to succeed in a plea of defence of insanity it is not enough to prove that the accused person was having certain abnormal personality traits or imbalances in his behaviour or that he was a maladjusted person. He might have been suffering from bouts of depression or exhibiting neurotic behaviour and may be a maladjusted individual. It is not every imbalance in behaviour or maladjustment in the personality that will entitle him to claim exemption under Sec.84, I.P.C. from the penal consequences of his acts. The language and message of Sec.84 is clear and definite as to the requirements of law. At the time of committing the offence charged, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. In other words, the unsoundness of mind should be of such a nature which will cloud or affect the perception of facts by the accused person so that he’ does not know that he is doing something wrong or contrary to law. To express in a more abstract language, his cognitive faculties must be affected by the unsoundness of mind so that he does not know the nature of the act he is doing or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. This has to be arrived at by the court from the medical evidence in the case and the other evidence adduced. 21. In this case the medical evidence clearly shows that the accused was not suffering from any insanity. P.W.13 has given direct evidence on that point. This has to be arrived at by the court from the medical evidence in the case and the other evidence adduced. 21. In this case the medical evidence clearly shows that the accused was not suffering from any insanity. P.W.13 has given direct evidence on that point. P.W.14, the Psychiatrist of the Government Hospital who observed that accused has also given evidence to that effect. P.W.12's evidence would reveal the mental state of the accused immediately after committing the offence. P.W.12 asked why the sisters of the accused did not come to Perumbavoor and he answered that they may come the next day with the police. He had also asked P.W. 12 whether kanji will be available in jail. These words of the accused clearly establish that he was aware of the nature of the act done by him and he knew that what he was doing was against law and police would come after him and he has to go to prison. We are of the view that there is no doubt whatsoever that the accused was not suffering from any unsoundness of mind which prevented him from knowing the nature of his act or understanding the consequences of his act As already stated by us, behavioural imbalances or personality maladjustments will not amount to insanity and will not satisfy the requirements of Sec 84 I.P.C. We are therefore of the opinion that the defence of insanity set up by the appellant- accused must fail. 22. Though counsel relied on the decisions reported in Kali Ram v. State of H.P. Kali Ram v. State of H.P., 1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1048: 1974 Crl.L.J.1, Varkey Joseph and Sharad Birdhi chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra Sharad Birdhi chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 S.C.C. (Crl.)487: 1984Crl.L.J 1738 we find that the prinples embodied in those decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. It is true that when two views are possible in the matter, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the latter view must prevail. But the facts of this case do not give rise to two views. 23. The question to be answered in this case is whether the evidence adduced give rise to any ‘reasonable doubt’ and whether the facts and circumstances proved can give rise to a possibility that the accused may be innocent. But the facts of this case do not give rise to two views. 23. The question to be answered in this case is whether the evidence adduced give rise to any ‘reasonable doubt’ and whether the facts and circumstances proved can give rise to a possibility that the accused may be innocent. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant in the background of the evidence adduced and we do not see any substance in this argument. At the time Renuka died, no other person except the accused had access to her and there is not doubt that the accused was not suffering from any unsoundness of mind which prevented him from knowing the nature of his act or the consequences which would follow. On the other hand, the evidence clearly establishes that he knew what he did and was expecting the police to imprison him which shows that he had a clear perception of the nature of his act and its consequences. Therefore, no question of any reasonable doubt arises in this case as to the possibility of the accused being innocent. The only conclusion that can be arrived at from the evidence and circumstances of the case is that the accused is guilty of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. He Cannot also escape from the penal liability on the ground that he was suffering from any unsoundness of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act done by him. 24. In the result, the conviction and sentence entered against the appellant are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. B.S.-----Appeal dismissed.